EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, Adm. Case No.

2474, 2004-09-15

Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Leo J. Palma,... grounds "deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of
his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct."
Complainant and respondent met sometime in the 70's.
Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and
respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases.
Complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal counsel.
Respondent's relationship with complainant's family became intimate... complainant's 22-
year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa), then... a student of Assumption Convent.
On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainant's family, respondent married Lisa
in Hongkong.
Only the next day that respondent informed complainant and assured him that "everything is
legal."
Complainant... knowing fully well that... respondent is a married man and has three children.
on... the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from his (complainant's)
office an airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hong Kong;... respondent
misrepresented himself as "bachelor"... before the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his
marriage with Lisa... respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three
children, namely: Eugene Philippe, Elias Anton and Eduardo Lorenzo.
Complainant filed
Court of First Instance
Branch XXVII, Pasay City a petition [3] for declaration of nullity of the marriage between
respondent and Lisa... complainant filed with this Court... grave abuse and betrayal of the
trust and confidence
Respondent courted Maria Luisa with persistence and determination... moral ascendancy
over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss [6] on the ground of lack of cause of action.
Contended that the complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct or violation of his lawyer's oath.
There is no allegation that he acted with "wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of
the law" in serving complainant's interest.
He stressed that he married complainant's daughter with "utmost sincerity and good faith"
and that "it is... contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the
woman he sincerely loves."
On March 20, 2003, respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath
as a lawyer.
Be suspended from the practice of law for a... period of three (3) years.
Respondent admits that he married Maria Luisa in Hongkong representing himself as a
bachelor, however, he claimed that the marriage certificate stated a condition no different
from term "spinster" with respect to Luisa.
Respondent claims that he had served complainant to the best of his ability.
In fact, the complaint does not allege that he acted with "wanton recklessness, lack of skill
and ignorance of the law."...complainant himself admitted that respondent was a good
lawyer, however, professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member
of the Bar.

Issues:
Whether or not respondent committed the following acts which warrant his disbarment: a)
Grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant; b)
His misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a
second marriage; c)
The acts of respondent constitute deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Ruling:
November 2, 1982, the CFI declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
He was entering into a bigamous marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code.  The respondent betrayed the trust reposed in him... by complainant.
He was treated as part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa.
Respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it
is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) years.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted... but it reduced respondent's penalty to only one (1)
year suspension.
Clearly, respondent had crossed the limits of propriety... and decency.
Corollarily... the above responsibility is enshrined
Attorney's Oath which every lawyer in the country has to take before he is allowed to
practice.
In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer.
One (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of
his offense.
WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and
violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cbd43?user=6029